Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area recently. Please retest with btrfs-next. Thanks, Hi, I tested again with kernel 3.3.4 ; I wondered if latest btrfs code is present in this release or not. Results are very similar with 3.3.4 compared to 3.3.0 Olivier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:42:45PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote: Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area recently. Please retest with btrfs-next. Thanks, Hi, I tested again with kernel 3.3.4 ; I wondered if latest btrfs code is present in this release or not. Results are very similar with 3.3.4 compared to 3.3.0 It's not, you need to clone the btrfs-next tree and test with that. Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:03:50PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote: hello everyone, I made an overall benchmark of BTRFS against EXT4 and XFS. I'm quite unhappy with BTRFS results, so maybe tuning was not perfect. http://www.slideshare.net/ezameku/btrfs-benchmark All data is vectorial, so download the PDF and you can zoom ;) If you have any feedback on how to improve BTRFS results (and others fs too !), I would be glad to update my data. Test protocol Server : dual CPU Intel L5640 with HT enabled Operating system : CentOS 6.2 (64bits version) with custom tools/kernels Kernel : 3.3.0 Btrfs progs: version 0.19 Drive : Seagate 3TB drive (ST33000652SS) SAS attached via an LSI HBA. Drive was accessed through LVM ; MKFS options BTRFS: none XFS : none EXT4 : none Mount options BTRFS : noatime,nodiratime BTRFS compress : noatime,nodiratime,compress=lzo EXT4 : noatime,nodiratime XFS: noatime,nodiratime Benchmark is done with Sysbench (fileio test). Each benchmark was done for 60 seconds, and generated one point on the graph each second (to see variations). Right scale is block size. Data read / written is from /dev/urandom, so cannot be compressed much (that was expected behaviour). All second pages has no legend, I'm sorry for that : - data is 95 percentile aggregate. - colours are the same. Overview of results On sequential read, there is no variations between FS. On sequential write, BTRFS has lower values than EXT4/XFS. On random write also. Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area recently. Please retest with btrfs-next. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:03:50PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote: hello everyone, I made an overall benchmark of BTRFS against EXT4 and XFS. I'm quite unhappy with BTRFS results, so maybe tuning was not perfect. http://www.slideshare.net/ezameku/btrfs-benchmark All data is vectorial, so download the PDF and you can zoom ;) In the future, can you post this somewhere that doesn't require a login? (I'm happy to host the occasional pdf, for instance). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:03:50PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote: hello everyone, I made an overall benchmark of BTRFS against EXT4 and XFS. I'm quite unhappy with BTRFS results, so maybe tuning was not perfect. http://www.slideshare.net/ezameku/btrfs-benchmark All data is vectorial, so download the PDF and you can zoom ;) If you have any feedback on how to improve BTRFS results (and others fs too !), I would be glad to update my data. Test protocol Server : dual CPU Intel L5640 with HT enabled Operating system : CentOS 6.2 (64bits version) with custom tools/kernels Kernel : 3.3.0 Btrfs progs: version 0.19 Drive : Seagate 3TB drive (ST33000652SS) SAS attached via an LSI HBA. Drive was accessed through LVM ; MKFS options BTRFS: none XFS : none EXT4 : none Mount options BTRFS : noatime,nodiratime BTRFS compress : noatime,nodiratime,compress=lzo EXT4 : noatime,nodiratime XFS: noatime,nodiratime Benchmark is done with Sysbench (fileio test). Each benchmark was done for 60 seconds, and generated one point on the graph each second (to see variations). Right scale is block size. Data read / written is from /dev/urandom, so cannot be compressed much (that was expected behaviour). All second pages has no legend, I'm sorry for that : - data is 95 percentile aggregate. - colours are the same. Can you tell us what the unit of the Y-axis is? Is it MB/s or IOPs or time for a fixed amount data or... ? We've just been discussing this on IRC, and we've come up with two completely different interpretations of the data, so we're actually not sure how to interpret this. For example, in the seqwr/512 test, is btrfs doing really well at small numbers of threads, getting steadily worse, or is it doing really badly, and improves hugely as the number of threads goes up? Hugo. Overview of results On sequential read, there is no variations between FS. On sequential write, BTRFS has lower values than EXT4/XFS. On random write also. I guess what we're after is -- is a lower value better or worse? Thanks, Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- SCSI is usually fixed by remembering that it needs three --- terminations: One at each end of the chain. And the goat. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BTRFS Benchmarking
Hi, I uploaded the PDF on Dropbox that does not require login https://www.dropbox.com/s/5i8l0kmdutxj6pb/sysbench-sas3t-btrfs1.pdf Can you tell us what the unit of the Y-axis is? Is it MB/s or IOPs or time for a fixed amount data or... ? Unit is MB/s ; For each test, I gather speed every second. So for a particular test, there is 60 dots (for example, speed for BTRFS on 1 thread, blocksize=512b, sequential read). As 60 dots are not easy to read, I created second pages with one aggregated value as 95 percentile. Sequential read results seems heavily altered by Linux pagecache. I wondered what would be the exact methodology to disable this optimization. But all FS were run in the exact same behaviour (bash scripted with umount / mount after each session). I provided access to the bash script I used and R script to create nice PDF. Feel free to give me any feedback on how I could get results more accurate. https://github.com/odoucet/fs-benchs For example, in the seqwr/512 test, is btrfs doing really well at small numbers of threads, getting steadily worse, or is it doing really badly, and improves hugely as the number of threads goes up? It is doing badly but improves when number of threads goes up. I'll improve my benchmark results by adding self-explainable legends. I will be happy to discuss my methodology if you think something is wrong. Olivier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
